PDA

View Full Version : Radio-carbon dating



samsara15
2002-Jul-10, 06:31 PM
My brother, a CPA with a chemistry degreee, who sould no better, has suddemly taken to questioning radio-carbon and pottasium-argon dating, along with the mainline academic timeline of Egyptian History. I can find creationist websites, which (of course) question radio-carbon dating, and question pottasium-argon dating, too, and scientifc sites which describe the methods, but can find no scientific sites which respond to the critics of the various dating methods. Can anyone recommend some such sites to me so that I can direct my brother to them?

DaveC
2002-Jul-10, 06:43 PM
Try this site:

http://www.talkorigins.com

They have excellent discussions on a number of creation/evolution topics, including dating techniques.

David Hall
2002-Jul-10, 07:19 PM
I remember half-watching a documentary about one researcher's claim that the chronology of the Egyptian Pharoh's was off by a couple of centuries. I didn't get to see the whole thing so I can't discuss it, but I remember thinking that his points sounded reasonable. But he may of had a biblical bias, as he was trying to compare it to Hebrew chronology as well.

It'd be nice to see that documentary again. I'll pay more attention next time if I get a chance.

(addendum)

Well, to answer my own questions, a quick google search came up with this site. It looks like a thorough debunking of the mistaken chronology idea. I'll be 'wasting some time' on this one for a while.

http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-07-10 15:27 ]</font>

samsara15
2002-Jul-10, 07:54 PM
On 2002-07-10 15:19, David Hall wrote:
I remember half-watching a documentary about one researcher's claim that the chronology of the Egyptian Pharoh's was off by a couple of centuries. I didn't get to see the whole thing so I can't discuss it, but I remember thinking that his points sounded reasonable. But he may of had a biblical bias, as he was trying to compare it to Hebrew chronology as well.

It'd be nice to see that documentary again. I'll pay more attention next time if I get a chance.

(addendum)

Well, to answer my own questions, a quick google search came up with this site. It looks like a thorough debunking of the mistaken chronology idea. I'll be 'wasting some time' on this one for a while.

http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-07-10 15:27 ]</font>
[/quote]

My brother's particular challenge to the main-line Egyptian historians was maintaining that the ruler 'Scorpion' had governed a unified Egypt, based on a recent movie (which I have not seen), from which he rambled into his questions about various dating methods based on radioactive material. Of course, a lot of the dating back around 3000 BC was done in the early part of the last century and is based on tree rings and pottery shards and so forth.... I ducked the implication of his questions until I could research them more thoroughly.... Thank you for the sourc,e it appears to be a good one, requiring a lot of research and reading.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: samsara15 on 2002-07-10 16:00 ]</font>

roidspop
2002-Jul-10, 07:55 PM
I've got a creationist/hollow-earther who has this notion that if all geological formations were dated using radiocarbon, it would prove that the earth is only 6,000 years old, but do the geologists ever use radiocarbon on Permian fossils! NO! So that's proof of a Giant Conspiracy! I need to get a life.

samsara15
2002-Jul-10, 08:05 PM
On 2002-07-10 15:55, roidspop wrote:
I've got a creationist/hollow-earther who has this notion that if all geological formations were dated using radiocarbon, it would prove that the earth is only 6,000 years old, but do the geologists ever use radiocarbon on Permian fossils! NO! So that's proof of a Giant Conspiracy! I need to get a life.

It never ceases me what people choose to believe, but we all have family memebers whom we need to disagree with in a tactful manner.

Tim Thompson
2002-Jul-10, 08:19 PM
That's TalkOrigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org/), specifically the several age of the earth FAQs (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html). Also, try my Radiometric Dating Resource List (http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html), which includes a bunch of stuff on 14C, and several rebuttals to creationists.

DaveC
2002-Jul-10, 09:08 PM
Thanks for the correction, Tim. .com will get you there, but it's an extra step. I should hve checked the link before I posted it rather than rely on this old brain's failing capacity to remember things.

Phobos
2002-Jul-10, 09:37 PM
For those that believe the Earth and Universe are 6000 years old, I wonder how we can see objects more than 6000 light years away ...

Phobos

nebularain
2002-Jul-11, 12:00 AM
On 2002-07-10 15:19, David Hall wrote:
I remember half-watching a documentary about one researcher's claim that the chronology of the Egyptian Pharoh's was off by a couple of centuries. I didn't get to see the whole thing so I can't discuss it, but I remember thinking that his points sounded reasonable. But he may of had a biblical bias, as he was trying to compare it to Hebrew chronology as well.

It'd be nice to see that documentary again. I'll pay more attention next time if I get a chance.

(addendum)

Well, to answer my own questions, a quick google search came up with this site. It looks like a thorough debunking of the mistaken chronology idea. I'll be 'wasting some time' on this one for a while.

http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html


You can get the video from the Discovery Channel; it's called Pharoah's and Kings: A Biblical Quest. I also found David Rohl's website from The Learning Channel website: http://www.nunki.net/PerMin/News/NunkiNavigation.html

I checked out the above website you mentioned, and the bit I read had a lot of "critical thinking holes" in it. For one, the first link you can read states that David Rohl based his theory on a tomb. That is incorrect; the tomb was used as supporting evidence. The origin of his search was a written record by the chief architect of a some structure who mentioned things that enabled Rohl to tie a date with the Pharoah of the time. Further arguments on that page were based on pieces of history that Rohl had not found sufficient explanation for, but mentioned nothing of the points Rohl brought out to support his claim. Well, if, suppose, the conventional timeline really was off, of course some confusions would occur because all the pieces were originally put together with that timeframe in mind. Anyway, those are just examples. Maybe other arguments further down the page offer more critically acurate explanations.

BTW, Rohl actually didn't have a Biblical bias. Because, as is mentioned in the film, Egyptology began from archeologists trying to tie together the Biblical account with the Egyptian account, he was merely continuing that tradition. On the Learning Channel website where it mentioned his research, he affirmed that he was not out to prove the Bible, just looking to see if pieces could be tied together.

Just an alternate side to think about. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-07-10 20:02 ]</font>

samsara15
2002-Jul-12, 01:03 AM
On 2002-07-10 20:00, nebularain wrote:


On 2002-07-10 15:19, David Hall wrote:
I remember half-watching a documentary about one researcher's claim that the chronology of the Egyptian Pharoh's was off by a couple of centuries. I didn't get to see the whole thing so I can't discuss it, but I remember thinking that his points sounded reasonable. But he may of had a biblical bias, as he was trying to compare it to Hebrew chronology as well.

It'd be nice to see that documentary again. I'll pay more attention next time if I get a chance.

(addendum)

Well, to answer my own questions, a quick google search came up with this site. It looks like a thorough debunking of the mistaken chronology idea. I'll be 'wasting some time' on this one for a while.

http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html


You can get the video from the Discovery Channel; it's called Pharoah's and Kings: A Biblical Quest. I also found David Rohl's website from The Learning Channel website: http://www.nunki.net/PerMin/News/NunkiNavigation.html

I checked out the above website you mentioned, and the bit I read had a lot of "critical thinking holes" in it. For one, the first link you can read states that David Rohl based his theory on a tomb. That is incorrect; the tomb was used as supporting evidence. The origin of his search was a written record by the chief architect of a some structure who mentioned things that enabled Rohl to tie a date with the Pharoah of the time. Further arguments on that page were based on pieces of history that Rohl had not found sufficient explanation for, but mentioned nothing of the points Rohl brought out to support his claim. Well, if, suppose, the conventional timeline really was off, of course some confusions would occur because all the pieces were originally put together with that timeframe in mind. Anyway, those are just examples. Maybe other arguments further down the page offer more critically acurate explanations.

BTW, Rohl actually didn't have a Biblical bias. Because, as is mentioned in the film, Egyptology began from archeologists trying to tie together the Biblical account with the Egyptian account, he was merely continuing that tradition. On the Learning Channel website where it mentioned his research, he affirmed that he was not out to prove the Bible, just looking to see if pieces could be tied together.

Just an alternate side to think about. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-07-10 20:02 ]</font>


We need to remember that all these people are not as dumb or as crazy as they sound, and then to find the right sources to reply to them. That isn't easy. It took a lot of extremely bright people to and hard research to get us (the modern knowledge base) where we are now, and we don't get taught it in school, and in lots of cases, it has beeen learned or discovered long after we graduated from school.

ljbrs
2002-Jul-12, 01:50 AM
For those that believe the Earth and Universe are 6000 years old, I wonder how we can see objects more than 6000 light years away ...

Phobos


I think that the folks who believe in a 6000 year old earth would find some way to have the entire Universe reflect that notion. Perhaps they believe the appearance and/or the effect can be accomplished with cosmic *smoke and mirrors*?

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Silas
2002-Jul-12, 02:17 AM
On 2002-07-10 17:37, Phobos wrote:
For those that believe the Earth and Universe are 6000 years old, I wonder how we can see objects more than 6000 light years away ...

Phobos


Two classic answers:

The "Omphalos" argument, which says that the light was "created" en route, in order to give an appearance of age to the cosmos. (This is generally unacceptable to YECs since it implies deceit on the part of the creator.)

The argument that basic physical constants have changed: maybe the speed of light was much higher in the past, so the light from distant stars got here in only 6,000 years. This has serious problems, since the speed of light is involved in physics and chemistry, and if the speed of light was once much greater, those distant stars could not possibly show the emission and absorption lines we see in spectroscopy.

(There is also a problem from isotropy: it would imply that the speed of light declined in a way as for all starlight to arrive at the earth at about the same time. Again, it suggests a deceitful creator.)

YEC physics is little better than Flat Earth physics (of which I have made not only a study, but some actual theoretical contributions...)

Silas

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jul-12, 07:46 PM
Concerning David Rohl and his New Chronology: Nebularain is pretty much on the mark about how other chronologies would be affected if the Egyptian was proved to be off. Rohl is by no means the only scientist involved in this.

Rohl's book, A Test of Time (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099416565/qid=1026501600/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_2_3/026-3259728-0488438) in the original UK edition, Pharoahs and Kings (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0517438070/qid%3D1026501648/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-3614939-5943844) in the US edition (but currently OOP), goes into much greater detail than either the TV special based on it (natch) or his website Nunki.net (http://www.nunki.net/), although his website contains some updated info for those who already have the book.

Another, even better source because it covers the fallout regarding most Mediterranean civilisations where the chronology is based on the Egyptian, is Peter James' Centuries of Darkness (http://www.centuries.co.uk/index.htm) website (unfortunately, his book, also Centuries of Darkness (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813519500/qid=1026501871/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-3259728-0488438), is Special Order but if you don't mind waiting it's a great resource on this specific topic). James, like Rohl, is not a Biblical scholar or archaelogist; he covers the Israelite chronology as only one of many that have been artificially extended due to being forced to match an Egyptian chronology that is single-sourced on the priest Manetho's Pharoanic list. James' work shows that nearly all of the ANE and other Mediterranean cultures of the Late Bronze Age and thereabouts have to have "dark ages", generally on the rough order of two centuries worth, interpolated into their timelines not because of any evidence, but because that's the only way to make their chronologies line up with Manetho's. James then proposes that the real solution isn't to extend everybody else's timeline by two centuries, but to find the "unnecessary" two centuries (not necessarily in a single block) to cut out of Manetho.

The most reasonable general solution is that not all of the Egyptian dynasties were non-overlapping; also, individual Pharoahs had overlapping reigns at times, generally by raising a son to co-Pharoah before his father's death. It is known, and accepted in the concensus chronology, that this did happen from time to time; the extent of Rohl's and James' "revisionism" is to point out that it probably happened more often than the archaeologic Old Guard are willing as yet to accept.

Another site that deals with this is Jim Reilly's Displaced Dynasties (http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/). Likewise, P. John Crowe's Revision of Ancient History (http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ancient.htm) page.

Needless to say, not all of these archaeologists agree on exactly when to cut out the roughly two centuries from Manetho. Most accept the proposition that more than one block, totalling ~200 years, is likely to be the solution, rather than a single occurrence.

All in all, this is not simply a "lone voice crying in the wilderness" issue any more: too many good, young archaeologists from different backgrounds (Egyptology, Mycenaean, and yes, Biblical) are seeing that this is a real problem and needs to be addressed. As is normal for a (I hate the phrase, but I'll use it here anyway) paradigm shift, the Old Guard is resisting any change in the accepted concensus chronology, but it's becoming more and more obvious that they're "phlogiston" archaeologists as far as this particular point goes.

And, having the point of view that I have, I do want to point out: Many archaeologists who deal, directly or indirectly, with the archaeology of the Levant, do not accept that the Bible is an inspired Scripture, and at the same time insist that Manetho's Pharoanic list, which for the vast majority of its timeline is only vaguely supported by any other evidence (and not always even that), cannot be tampered with. It is, as they say, to laugh. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

The (dig we must) Curtmudgeon

nebularain
2002-Jul-12, 11:14 PM
Interesting points, Curtmudgeon.

One of my pet peeves with scientific studies is that too often when someone presents something that does not jive with mainstream thinking, it gets rejected outright without anyone taking a serious look at the initial basis for the claim that may have a valid point or discovery behind it. This happened with the theory of continental drift. Alfred Wegener proposed this theory in 1912, pointing to such previously presented, though rejected, findings as that of the shorelines of South America and Africa appearing to have once fit together, similarities of fossils found on the two continents as if they had once shared plant species, and areas of erosion in South Africa, India, and Australia that appear to have been caused by the same glacier. Because he could not come up with a sufficient cause for this continental drift, nor answer arguments raised against his claims, his theory was completely debunked by the scientific community. Fortunately, enough scientists were willing to take his proposition into consideration and discovered the mechanism of seafloor spreading. Now, the first time I ever heard of the theory of continental drift and seafloor spreading, I was still a Young Earth Creationist (I know, dirty word) and did not like the idea of accepting something that went against my religious beliefs, but upon seeing the evidence, I had no choice but to accept that the points were too valid to be ignored! (Thus the reason this example so well sticks in my mind.)

So, when I see someone coming up with something that appears to have a valid point to it, but is rejected for lack of sufficient explanation, I tend to go /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif . The presenter often has to dig up crazy explanations for all the questions the critics come up with, and the critics often attack those points but fail to offer sufficient alternative explanations for the discovery(ies) the presenter based his theory on. Granted, not all new theories are such, but it has happened enough to be annoying.

I would be surprised if everything Rohl presented is correct, just as the theory Wegener proposed for how the continents could be drifting apart (something very weird with centrifugal force) was incorrect, but it seems there’s enough findings to make one think he’s onto something worth investigating. Most people did not like the idea of Pluto losing its planet status either, but sufficient evidence has been pointing in that direction to warrant alterations to what was/is believed.

As a side note, a piece of evidence has been found that questions ancient timeframes. The frozen mummified body of the “iceman” found in the Alps in the early 1990’s, dated to being over 5000 yrs. old, was carrying a copper-headed ax; this is over 500 yrs. earlier than people in that region were believed to have been melting and shaping copper to such a fine degree. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif Are the dates established for the Copper Age correct? http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/iceman/iceman.html
Something to think about.

(My apologies for the length of this post /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif .)

Silas
2002-Jul-12, 11:33 PM
On 2002-07-12 19:14, nebularain wrote:
Interesting points, Curtmudgeon.

One of my pet peeves with scientific studies is that too often when someone presents something that does not jive with mainstream thinking, it gets rejected outright without anyone taking a serious look at the initial basis for the claim that may have a valid point or discovery behind it. This happened with the theory of continental drift. Alfred Wegener proposed this theory in 1912, pointing to such previously presented, though rejected, findings as that of the shorelines of South America and Africa appearing to have once fit together, similarities of fossils found on the two continents as if they had once shared plant species, and areas of erosion in South Africa, India, and Australia that appear to have been caused by the same glacier. Because he could not come up with a sufficient cause for this continental drift, nor answer arguments raised against his claims, his theory was completely debunked by the scientific community.


Geologists objected to "continental drift," which implied that the continents moved over the sea-floor. They showed, quite conclusively, that the sea-floor material is simply too solid for this to be possible.

Wegener's theory was wrong, and science was absolutely right to throw it away.



Fortunately, enough scientists were willing to take his proposition into consideration and discovered the mechanism of seafloor spreading.


Which is a completely different mechanism, and which was received enthusiastically in a very short period of time.

I understand your peeve, but you're targeting the wrong enemy. Wegener wasn't dismissed out of narrow-mindedness or stubbornness: he was dismissed because his theory could not explain the observed facts.
[/quote]

The way I see it, it's a lovely multi-chapter story of science working exactly the way it's supposed to work. The key was in the discovery of new evidence: the mid-Atlantic ridge and the regions of magnetized stone that indicated a time-scale due to magnetic pole reversals.

(It was also about that time that the "Hot Spot" explanation for the Hawaiian Island chain was devised, and which seems to be valid...at least till yet!)

Silas

beskeptical
2002-Jul-13, 04:45 AM
There is a narrow line between rejecting an hypothesis out of hand because it doesn't appear to be realistic and rejecting a theory or hypothesis because there is overwhelming evidence against it. We do have to be careful and I'm sure every one of us has probably been guilty at some time of discarding an hypothesis that later proved to have merit.

On the other hand.... everything does not have merit. There are times when you just can't, for the sake of politeness, keep your mind open to every possibility that every single person brings to the discussion.

I do keep reminding myself that being wrong means you have learned something new. (Kind of like grey hairs are status symbols, why make your self esteem vulnerable to self imposed expectations.)

When it might be a grey area but I don't think so, or when I'm right but you think you are /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif, I don't have qualms about saying there's enough evidence here to make a call.

If you are careful to be correct or to be able to back up your declarations with good evidence as much of the time as possible, people will see the difference between pig headedness and confidence.

nebularain
2002-Jul-13, 02:28 PM
On 2002-07-12 19:33, Silas wrote:
Geologists objected to "continental drift," which implied that the continents moved over the sea-floor. They showed, quite conclusively, that the sea-floor material is simply too solid for this to be possible.

Wegener's theory was wrong, and science was absolutely right to throw it away.



Fortunately, enough scientists were willing to take his proposition into consideration and discovered the mechanism of seafloor spreading.


Which is a completely different mechanism, and which was received enthusiastically in a very short period of time.

I understand your peeve, but you're targeting the wrong enemy. Wegener wasn't dismissed out of narrow-mindedness or stubbornness: he was dismissed because his theory could not explain the observed facts.


Hmmm...the way I understood things, as it was presented, was that scientists of the day were completely against the idea that the continents were originally one land mass and now spreading apart. Wasn't it Wegener who first proposed "Pangaea," which everyone now pretty much accepts? There was Suess in 1855 who presented the fossil evidence between the two Southern Atlantic continents to argue that the two were originally one land mass. His proposal was not accepted because he could not explain how the continents moved. Wegener argued for the single land mass and included a proposal for how the pieces of it drifted apart. It seemed to me that both ideas (single land mass as well as the spreading mechanism) were rejected. I have been given the impression that scientists did not want to accept the notion that the continents were all one land mass because an adequate explanation had not been offered for how it could be so. I can understand hesitency towards accepting something that could not be adequately explained, but couldn't there have least been an acknowledgement that enough evidence suggests the continents were originally one land mass? Is it so hard to say: we can't explain their claims any better than they can (how or why the continents could be spreading apart), but the evidence (shape of the continental edges seeming to fit together, the similar fossils, and what-not) does have some valid points to it? I just keep getting this impression that when a new discovery comes along, an explanation has to be offered with it, and if people don't like the explanation they reject the discovery as well - but they seem to quite often attack the interpretation and not the discovery behind the interpretation.

Am I incorrect?

P.S. I hadn't thought of Continental Drift and Seafloor Spreading as different mechanisms (the continents drift apart because the seafloor is spreading, right? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif ). You're probably right, though.

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-07-13 10:31 ]</font>

samsara15
2002-Jul-15, 01:01 AM
On 2002-07-12 15:46, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
Concerning David Rohl and his New Chronology: Nebularain is pretty much on the mark about how other chronologies would be affected if the Egyptian was proved to be off. Rohl is by no means the only scientist involved in this.

Rohl's book, A Test of Time (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099416565/qid=1026501600/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_2_3/026-3259728-0488438) in the original UK edition, Pharoahs and Kings (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0517438070/qid%3D1026501648/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-3614939-5943844) in the US edition (but currently OOP), goes into much greater detail than either the TV special based on it (natch) or his website Nunki.net (http://www.nunki.net/), although his website contains some updated info for those who already have the book.

Another, even better source because it covers the fallout regarding most Mediterranean civilisations where the chronology is based on the Egyptian, is Peter James' Centuries of Darkness (http://www.centuries.co.uk/index.htm) website (unfortunately, his book, also Centuries of Darkness (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813519500/qid=1026501871/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-3259728-0488438), is Special Order but if you don't mind waiting it's a great resource on this specific topic). James, like Rohl, is not a Biblical scholar or archaelogist; he covers the Israelite chronology as only one of many that have been artificially extended due to being forced to match an Egyptian chronology that is single-sourced on the priest Manetho's Pharoanic list. James' work shows that nearly all of the ANE and other Mediterranean cultures of the Late Bronze Age and thereabouts have to have "dark ages", generally on the rough order of two centuries worth, interpolated into their timelines not because of any evidence, but because that's the only way to make their chronologies line up with Manetho's. James then proposes that the real solution isn't to extend everybody else's timeline by two centuries, but to find the "unnecessary" two centuries (not necessarily in a single block) to cut out of Manetho.

The most reasonable general solution is that not all of the Egyptian dynasties were non-overlapping; also, individual Pharoahs had overlapping reigns at times, generally by raising a son to co-Pharoah before his father's death. It is known, and accepted in the concensus chronology, that this did happen from time to time; the extent of Rohl's and James' "revisionism" is to point out that it probably happened more often than the archaeologic Old Guard are willing as yet to accept.

Another site that deals with this is Jim Reilly's Displaced Dynasties (http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/). Likewise, P. John Crowe's Revision of Ancient History (http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ancient.htm) page.

Needless to say, not all of these archaeologists agree on exactly when to cut out the roughly two centuries from Manetho. Most accept the proposition that more than one block, totalling ~200 years, is likely to be the solution, rather than a single occurrence.

All in all, this is not simply a "lone voice crying in the wilderness" issue any more: too many good, young archaeologists from different backgrounds (Egyptology, Mycenaean, and yes, Biblical) are seeing that this is a real problem and needs to be addressed. As is normal for a (I hate the phrase, but I'll use it here anyway) paradigm shift, the Old Guard is resisting any change in the accepted concensus chronology, but it's becoming more and more obvious that they're "phlogiston" archaeologists as far as this particular point goes.

And, having the point of view that I have, I do want to point out: Many archaeologists who deal, directly or indirectly, with the archaeology of the Levant, do not accept that the Bible is an inspired Scripture, and at the same time insist that Manetho's Pharoanic list, which for the vast majority of its timeline is only vaguely supported by any other evidence (and not always even that), cannot be tampered with. It is, as they say, to laugh. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

The (dig we must) Curtmudgeon

samsara15
2002-Jul-15, 01:02 AM
On 2002-07-12 15:46, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
Concerning David Rohl and his New Chronology: Nebularain is pretty much on the mark about how other chronologies would be affected if the Egyptian was proved to be off. Rohl is by no means the only scientist involved in this.

Rohl's book,

A Test of Time (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099416565/qid=1026501600/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_2_3/026-3259728-0488438) in the original UK edition, Pharoahs and Kings (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0517438070/qid%3D1026501648/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-3614939-5943844) in the US edition (but currently OOP), goes into much greater detail than either the TV special based on it (natch) or his website Nunki.net (http://www.nunki.net/), although his website contains some updated info for those who already have the book.

Another, even better source because it covers the fallout regarding most Mediterranean civilisations where the chronology is based on the Egyptian, is Peter James' Centuries of Darkness (http://www.centuries.co.uk/index.htm) website (unfortunately, his book, also Centuries of Darkness (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813519500/qid=1026501871/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-3259728-0488438), is Special Order but if you don't mind waiting it's a great resource on this specific topic). James, like Rohl, is not a Biblical scholar or archaelogist; he covers the Israelite chronology as only one of many that have been artificially extended due to being forced to match an Egyptian chronology that is single-sourced on the priest Manetho's Pharoanic list. James' work shows that nearly all of the ANE and other Mediterranean cultures of the Late Bronze Age and thereabouts have to have "dark ages", generally on the rough order of two centuries worth, interpolated into their timelines not because of any evidence, but because that's the only way to make their chronologies line up with Manetho's. James then proposes that the real solution isn't to extend everybody else's timeline by two centuries, but to find the "unnecessary" two centuries (not necessarily in a single block) to cut out of Manetho.

The most reasonable general solution is that not all of the Egyptian dynasties were non-overlapping; also, individual Pharoahs had overlapping reigns at times, generally by raising a son to co-Pharoah before his father's death. It is known, and accepted in the concensus chronology, that this did happen from time to time; the extent of Rohl's and James' "revisionism" is to point out that it probably happened more often than the archaeologic Old Guard are willing as yet to accept.

Another site that deals with this is Jim Reilly's Displaced Dynasties (http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/). Likewise, P. John Crowe's Revision of Ancient History (http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ancient.htm) page.

Needless to say, not all of these archaeologists agree on exactly when to cut out the roughly two centuries from Manetho. Most accept the proposition that more than one block, totalling ~200 years, is likely to be the solution, rather than a single occurrence.

All in all, this is not simply a "lone voice crying in the wilderness" issue any more: too many good, young archaeologists from different backgrounds (Egyptology, Mycenaean, and yes, Biblical) are seeing that this is a real problem and needs to be addressed. As is normal for a (I hate the phrase, but I'll use it here anyway) paradigm shift, the Old Guard is resisting any change in the accepted concensus chronology, but it's becoming more and more obvious that they're "phlogiston" archaeologists as far as this particular point goes.

And, having the point of view that I have, I do want to point out: Many archaeologists who deal, directly or indirectly, with the archaeology of the Levant, do not accept that the Bible is an inspired Scripture, and at the same time insist that Manetho's Pharoanic list, which for the vast majority of its timeline is only vaguely supported by any other evidence (and not always even that), cannot be tampered with. It is, as they say, to laugh. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

The (dig we must) Curtmudgeon


I CAN'T BUY THOSE ARGUMENTS. SORRY.

samsara15
2002-Jul-15, 01:06 AM
On 2002-07-11 21:50, ljbrs wrote:

For those that believe the Earth and Universe are 6000 years old, I wonder how we can see objects more than 6000 light years away ...

Phobos


I think that the folks who believe in a 6000 year old earth would find some way to have the entire Universe reflect that notion. Perhaps they believe the appearance and/or the effect can be accomplished with cosmic *smoke and mirrors*?

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

samsara15
2002-Jul-15, 01:08 AM
On 2002-07-11 21:50, ljbrs wrote:

For those that believe the Earth and Universe are 6000 years old, I wonder how we can see objects more than 6000 light years away ...

Phobos




I think that the folks who believe in a 6000 year old earth would find some way to have the entire Universe reflect that notion. Perhaps they believe the appearance and/or the effect can be accomplished with cosmic *smoke and mirrors*?

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif



No problem for them; All they have to do is say that the light began its path 6002 years ago...and all also the universe exists only inside my head, too?

samsara15
2002-Jul-15, 01:11 AM
On 2002-07-12 19:14, nebularain wrote:
Interesting points, Curtmudgeon.

One of my pet peeves with scientific studies is that too often when someone presents something that does not jive with mainstream thinking, it gets rejected outright without anyone taking a serious look at the initial basis for the claim that may have a valid point or discovery behind it. This happened with the theory of continental drift. Alfred Wegener proposed this theory in 1912, pointing to such previously presented, though rejected, findings as that of the shorelines of South America and Africa appearing to have once fit together, similarities of fossils found on the two continents as if they had once shared plant species, and areas of erosion in South Africa, India, and Australia that appear to have been caused by the same glacier. Because he could not come up with a sufficient cause for this continental drift, nor answer arguments raised against his claims, his theory was completely debunked by the scientific community. Fortunately, enough scientists were willing to take his proposition into consideration and discovered the mechanism of seafloor spreading. Now, the first time I ever heard of the theory of continental drift and seafloor spreading, I was still a Young Earth Creationist (I know, dirty word) and did not like the idea of accepting something that went against my religious beliefs, but upon seeing the evidence, I had no choice but to accept that the points were too valid to be ignored! (Thus the reason this example so well sticks in my mind.)

So, when I see someone coming up with something that appears to have a valid point to it, but is rejected for lack of sufficient explanation, I tend to go /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif . The presenter often has to dig up crazy explanations for all the questions the critics come up with, and the critics often attack those points but fail to offer sufficient alternative explanations for the discovery(ies) the presenter based his theory on. Granted, not all new theories are such, but it has happened enough to be annoying.

I would be surprised if everything Rohl presented is correct, just as the theory Wegener proposed for how the continents could be drifting apart (something very weird with centrifugal force) was incorrect, but it seems there’s enough findings to make one think he’s onto something worth investigating. Most people did not like the idea of Pluto losing its planet status either, but sufficient evidence has been pointing in that direction to warrant alterations to what was/is believed.

As a side note, a piece of evidence has been found that questions ancient timeframes. The frozen mummified body of the “iceman” found in the Alps in the early 1990’s, dated to being over 5000 yrs. old, was carrying a copper-headed ax; this is over 500 yrs. earlier than people in that region were believed to have been melting and shaping copper to such a fine degree. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif Are the dates established for the Copper Age correct? http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/iceman/iceman.html
Something to think about.

(My apologies for the length of this post /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif .)

''

I think they're still working on the story of the iceman. Also, weren't there some people over in the area of modern day Bosnia who had a civilization that made copper?

beskeptical
2002-Jul-15, 10:01 AM
On 2002-07-12 19:14, nebularain wrote:
As a side note, a piece of evidence has been found that questions ancient timeframes. The frozen mummified body of the “iceman” found in the Alps in the early 1990’s, dated to being over 5000 yrs. old, was carrying a copper-headed ax; this is over 500 yrs. earlier than people in that region were believed to have been melting and shaping copper to such a fine degree. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif Are the dates established for the Copper Age correct? http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/iceman/iceman.html
Something to think about.


I'm not sure I'd compare a date that might be off by hundreds or even thousands to one that is off by billions of years.

Finding a copper axe head that was made 500 years earlier than previously believed is hardly earthshaking, even if archeologists or the news media present it as such. Don't lose your perspective here.

I'm fascinated by the geologist who thinks the Sphinx in Egypt is twice as old as most archeologists have concluded. His hypothesis is based on the erosion of the Sphinx which correlates with an older weather pattern. Archeologists are doubtful because they feel there is no evidence of an earlier civilization that had the capability to build the Sphinx.

This kind of disagreement is sometimes used to conclude that scientists are always being proven wrong. Since they don't agree, why should any science be reliable? But such a conclusion would really be more of a misunderstanding of how the scientific process works.

Research needs to be repeatable. If you look at it one way, I look at it another, and then we come to different conclusions it is all just part of the process. You said this yourself after hearing two explanations for the evolution evidence.

But the mistake is made when people try to form an opinion based on whatever interpretation they favor without examining the rest of the available evidence.

Take the age of the Sphinx question. Will it be 5,000 or 10,000 years old? The archeologists need to study geology and the geologist needs to study archeology if they want to really evaluate the discrepancy. Maybe a third science like astronomy will offer more clues. I thought I had heard that some of the astronomical correlates in Egyptian monuments may be from 10,000 years ago based on where precession would have put us relative to the night sky. Maybe archeologists will discover more sites from satellite pictures. Maybe geologists will discover some reason for increased erosion besides having been built 10,000 years ago.

All the while science builds and builds its knowledge base. One day some major change may need to be made in the history books. That's what we should expect. It might be a major science news event. It might be a major blow to the guy who will have to revise his/her life work if it is refuted. But it wouldn't be any major blow to the scientific community.

Jim
2002-Jul-15, 12:54 PM
On 2002-07-15 06:01, beskeptical wrote:
[quote]
Finding a copper axe head that was made 500 years earlier than previously believed is hardly earthshaking, even if archeologists or the news media present it as such. Don't lose your perspective here.


Don't forget also that the dates given for the Copper Age (and the Bronze and Iron and so on) are approximations based on archaeological findings. Finding a piece of worked copper earlier than the "established" Copper Age simply means the dates may need to be revised.



I'm fascinated by the geologist who thinks the Sphinx in Egypt is twice as old as most archeologists have concluded. His hypothesis is based on the erosion of the Sphinx which correlates with an older weather pattern. Archeologists are doubtful because they feel there is no evidence of an earlier civilization that had the capability to build the Sphinx.

...

Take the age of the Sphinx question. Will it be 5,000 or 10,000 years old? The archeologists need to study geology and the geologist needs to study archeology if they want to really evaluate the discrepancy. Maybe a third science like astronomy will offer more clues. I thought I had heard that some of the astronomical correlates in Egyptian monuments may be from 10,000 years ago based on where precession would have put us relative to the night sky. Maybe archeologists will discover more sites from satellite pictures. Maybe geologists will discover some reason for increased erosion besides having been built 10,000 years ago.


They may have. The page linked below is a rather lengthy but interesting discussion of the "age question" with links (on page 3) to Internet sites for both viewpoints.

Basically, the "traditional" age of the Spinx is supported by geology at least as much as the "new" age is.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/sphinx2/introduction.html

nebularain
2002-Jul-15, 01:34 PM
On 2002-07-14 21:11, samsara15 wrote:
I think they're still working on the story of the iceman. Also, weren't there some people over in the area of modern day Bosnia who had a civilization that made copper?


I'm sure they are still working on the iceman. I haven't heard anything about the Bosnia civilization; I was just repeating what I read from the web site. The reason I mentioned the copper ax head was to offer a reason to believe that our understanding of ancient history isn't comletely "set in stone" so to speak, including time frames. For all the things we know, we still only know so little.

nebularain
2002-Jul-15, 02:30 PM
On 2002-07-15 06:01, beskeptical wrote:
I'm not sure I'd compare a date that might be off by hundreds or even thousands to one that is off by billions of years.


Billions of years? Where did that come from? I'm was talking about ancient Egypt.



Finding a copper axe head that was made 500 years earlier than previously believed is hardly earthshaking, even if archeologists or the news media present it as such. Don't lose your perspective here.


Really? I was taken back when I heard that for the first time. How could you not feel surprised about it?



This kind of disagreement is sometimes used to conclude that scientists are always being proven wrong. Since they don't agree, why should any science be reliable? But such a conclusion would really be more of a misunderstanding of how the scientific process works.


I hope you are not directing that statement at me, because I was not trying to argue that kind of a point by any means. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif I question how the scientists actually conduct themselves (are they really acting with an objective mindset?), not the scientific process. (And, yes, I know I need to be just as careful about this as the next guy - part of being humans and not robots!).



But the mistake is made when people try to form an opinion based on whatever interpretation they favor without examining the rest of the available evidence.


No argument there! My problem is that it seems to me that the evidence tends to be discarded for the interpretation; that is, the interpretation is attacked for this and that reason, but is the original evidence being re-evaluated for errors? Those are the kind of arguments I would like to see more often.

Putting together a puzzle without a guiding picture is very difficult, expecially when you don't even know what the picture is supposed to look like. As you put it together, your mind is trying to figure out what the picture is. At some point, you may decide - ah ha! This is a picture of such-n-such. So, the natural tendancy is to work this puzzle together in the context of that picture. But then you discover another piece, or you put together a small group of pieces, that go against what you believed the picture to be. What do you do? Do you discard the pieces? Do you somehow try to refit them into your old model? Do you allow your interpretation of what the picture should be to be put aside and allow the image to take its own course, even if it is harder to work within that frame? Maybe you will find the originl interpretation to be true after all, maybe it will be close to it, maybe it will be very different. Does that make a little more sense?




The archeologists need to study geology and the geologist needs to study archeology if they want to really evaluate the discrepancy. Maybe a third science like astronomy will offer more clues.


Boy, did you ever hit the nail on the head! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif Why aren't they working together better? You would think if they were after the truth they would want to put their heads togeter and evaluate all the evidences and figure out how to put them in context with each other.



All the while science builds and builds its knowledge base. One day some major change may need to be made in the history books. That's what we should expect. It might be a major science news event. It might be a major blow to the guy who will have to revise his/her life work if it is refuted. But it wouldn't be any major blow to the scientific community.


Agreed! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-07-15 10:32 ]</font>

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jul-15, 10:11 PM
On 2002-07-14 21:02, samsara15 wrote:
I CAN'T BUY THOSE ARGUMENTS. SORRY.


Hmm, okay, but just saying that doesn't establish that the arguments are in error.

I could go into more detail about what the arguments, pro and con, actually are, but then this isn't Bad Archaeology, is it? I've put the links in my previous post just so that those who are interested in the topic can go read the arguments for themselves (and although I didn't put any links directly for the "Establishment" position, all the sources I did link to have complete bibliographies). Pointless, and disruptive, for me to go into more detail here.

Nebularain, as for your comment about whether everything Rohl presented is correct, I would tend to agree with you. Reading Rohl, I found his presentation style (you can tell the book was written with the TV production in mind /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif ) sometimes got in the way of his arguments, and a few at the end of the book actually impressed me as being a bit "too good", even while I truly would like to believe them. Nevertheless, his point about the ~200y problem being an Egyptian chronology problem is amply demonstrated by James' work, who got to that same point from a totally different direction, and then went surveying all through the Middle/Late Bronze Age Med cultures and found the problem replicated. In fact, it was reading James' tome (not too bad a description of it: it's weighty both in size and content) that really convinced me about the scope of the problem. Rohl touches on just the Egyptian and Biblical chronologies (which, unfortunately, has left him open to some criticism from the anti-Bible crowd, although reading him shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's certainly not a Biblical literalist, and he came to this problem completely through Egyptological questions, and only later discovered that his proposed solution also solved some Biblical chrono questions). James shows that the problem is very much more wide spread, with evidence from MBA/LBA Spain, Sardinia, Italy, Sicily, Libya, Balkans, Greece, Anatolia (Hittites as well as others, such as Lydians), Syria, Phoenicia, Nubia, as well as Egypt and Israel--and even Assyria and other Mesopotamian cultures where the chronology is only partially based on the Egyptian.

Chronology in archaeology, just like dating in geology/paleontology, has always been a thorny problem. It has to be, by its very nature; stamping everything "(c) 2002" or "Made in Sumer 5000 BC" is a strictly modern phenomenon. The fact that the chronologies are being debated is not, therefore, much of a surprise; the fact that the concensus chronology has gone essentially unchallenged for as long as it has is the real surprise.

The (but then, I supposed I'm dating myself) Curtmudgeon

beskeptical
2002-Jul-16, 12:09 AM
On 2002-07-15 10:30, nebularain wrote:


On 2002-07-15 06:01, beskeptical wrote:
I'm not sure I'd compare a date that might be off by hundreds or even thousands to one that is off by billions of years.


Billions of years? Where did that come from? I'm was talking about ancient Egypt.

And from the original post:
One of my pet peeves with scientific studies is that too often when someone presents something that does not jive with mainstream thinking, it gets rejected outright without anyone taking a serious look at the initial basis for the claim that may have a valid point or discovery behind it.

As a side note, a piece of evidence has been found that questions ancient timeframes.


Sorry, maybe I misinterpretid this. The discussion was on ancient Egypt but also on radio carbon and potassium argon dating. It sounded like you might be implying if an archeological date might be off by 500 years, maybe the age of the Earth could be off as well. And that discussion is usually about whether the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or roughly 6,000 years.




Finding a copper axe head that was made 500 years earlier than previously believed is hardly earthshaking...


Really? I was taken back when I heard that for the first time. How could you not feel surprised about it?

I guess I am of the belief that some scientific fields have become a bit overconfident of their data. I am not surprised when new data contradicts a lot of science. I am surprised that everyone else is surprised by it.




This kind of disagreement is sometimes used to conclude that scientists are always being proven wrong. Since they don't agree, why should any science be reliable? But such a conclusion would really be more of a misunderstanding of how the scientific process works.


I hope you are not directing that statement at me, because I was not trying to argue that kind of a point by any means..

No. I meant that in a very general way. Many people trust coincidental observations and word of mouth information instead of research because of their lack of confidence in the research. And, much of their lack of confidence in the research comes from not understanding the research process.

I find your posts to be quite intelligent as are many of the posters on this board.

nebularain
2002-Jul-16, 08:53 PM
On 2002-07-15 20:09, beskeptical wrote:

I find your posts to be quite intelligent as are many of the posters on this board.


Why, thank-you, sir! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif I respect your input as well, even on points we've disagreed on.

No, I wasn't after questioning radio carbon dating. I've heard some of the arguments against it, but I'd have to really study them before I could formulate an opinion for or against either side, which I have not had time to do. Sure would make for an interesting research project, though.

beskeptical
2002-Jul-16, 09:16 PM
On 2002-07-16 16:53, nebularain wrote:


On 2002-07-15 20:09, beskeptical wrote:

I find your posts to be quite intelligent as are many of the posters on this board.


Why, thank-you, sir!

Gosh, I'm just going to have to be more feminine in my posts. You are the second person who assumed I was male. I hope that doesn't imply women are never hard headed scientific types. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

nebularain
2002-Jul-17, 02:38 AM
On 2002-07-16 17:16, beskeptical wrote:
Gosh, I'm just going to have to be more feminine in my posts. You are the second person who assumed I was male. I hope that doesn't imply women are never hard headed scientific types.


/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif It's funny, as I was writing my reply I had this "check in my spirit," if you will, that I shouldn't be assuming the gender, but I ignored it and went on anyway. Well, you know what they say about the definition of the word "****U*me".
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

(For those who never heard: When you assume, you make an A-- out of YOU and ME.)

Hee-haw! Hee-haw!

David Hall
2002-Jul-17, 03:03 AM
Hey, I'm the other offender here, and I take full responsibility for my error. In fact, I remember having almost the exact same point of self doubt when I made my goof too. I should have listened to my instincts.

But to come to nebularain's (and my own) defence a little, is it really so surprising to assume masculinity here? On a board like this, the membership is heavily weighted towards the masculine. Without obvious clues such as a feminine handle, it's natural to "play the odds" and assume the writer is male.

Now, let's say for example we were on (let's say) a cooking forum instead. I'm sure most people would have assumed you were female, even if you weren't. It's just the image that's brought to mind.

Sometimes stereotypes are accurate enough to be useful, as long as you understand that they aren't universal in scope. I for one am overjoyed to see so many intelligent female posters here. In fact I find you ladies to be some of the best and most interesting posters here.

(Now I probably just put my foot in it here somehow with this post. I usually find that whenever I attempt to defend myself, I somehow end up making things worse. Please go easy on me /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif )

beskeptical
2002-Jul-17, 07:18 AM
On 2002-07-16 23:03, David Hall wrote:
Hey, I'm the other offender here, and I take full responsibility for my error. In fact, I remember having almost the exact same point of self doubt when I made my goof too. I should have listened to my instincts.

But to come to nebularain's (and my own) defence a little, is it really so surprising to assume masculinity here? On a board like this, the membership is heavily weighted towards the masculine. Without obvious clues such as a feminine handle, it's natural to "play the odds" and assume the writer is male.


No worry mate, I'm not offended. And I would definitely say guessing a poster is male here would give you better than 50:50 odds of being correct. I have thought about changing Beskeptical. I started using it on another board where it made more sense. I have a picture in my mind of certain posters which I'm sure is not what they really look like. We'd probably all be in shock if we posted our pics. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

jumbo
2002-Jul-17, 09:48 AM
Actually the phrase thank you sir isn`t nesscessarily assuming the recipient of the comment is male. Its like the dear sir at the start of a letter.Despite what PC people tell you, if you dont know whether the person is male or female, sir is used, its just good grammar.(unlike most of my posts which are full of horrible grammatical mistakes). I`ve got to admit though i have made the assumption that most of the posters on a board like this are male.

beskeptical
2002-Jul-17, 07:33 PM
On 2002-07-17 05:48, jumbo wrote:
Actually the phrase thank you sir isn`t nesscessarily assuming the recipient of the comment is male. Its like the dear sir at the start of a letter.Despite what PC people tell you, if you dont know whether the person is male or female, sir is used, its just good grammar.(unlike most of my posts which are full of horrible grammatical mistakes). I`ve got to admit though i have made the assumption that most of the posters on a board like this are male.


Booo. Correct by outdated standards. It needs to go. That would definitely by politically incorrect in my book and I'm really not very picky.

"Dear Sir or Madam would you read my book? It took me years to write, won't you take a look? .... And I want to be a paperback writer."

Sorry, I got carried away. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

jumbo
2002-Jul-17, 09:33 PM
yep the dear sir thing is dated but dear sir or madam implies that after meeting the person in question that you were unsure as to their gender. Thats why i try to use either a neutral expression or preferably the persons name failing that i go to the grammatical default version. I don`t think dear humanoid or dear biped is snappy enough. Oh, and beskeptical seems to make perfect sense to me especially on a scientific board. It kinda reminds me to keep an open mind,but not so open my brains fall out!

beskeptical
2002-Jul-18, 02:06 AM
On 2002-07-17 17:33, jumbo wrote:
yep the dear sir thing is dated but dear sir or madam implies that after meeting the person in question that you were unsure as to their gender. ... I don`t think dear humanoid or dear biped is snappy enough. Oh, and beskeptical seems to make perfect sense to me especially on a scientific board. It kinda reminds me to keep an open mind,but not so open my brains fall out!


Thankyou for such a nice compliment. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Would you use a neutral or double gender heading if you had met the person? It's usually when you write but don't know who will read the letter isn't it?

I use the stuffy, 'To whom it may concern,' or the not formal enough, 'Dear folks,' but I'm not happy with either alternative. Oh well, progress is slow. There could be worse things. I could've been born in an earlier time or into another culture. That would have been hard. I wonder if Galileo ever let the girls borrow his telescope?

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jul-18, 07:40 PM
I don't know, "Dear Homo sap" has a certain ring to it! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hey, BeSkep, if you really do think about changing your handle to be more "feminine" (and I for one don't think it necessary, but you're the one who has to field the various questions that arise), you could try 'Beskeptigal' instead. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

The (or not) Curtmudgeon

Gsquare
2002-Jul-19, 03:21 AM
On 2002-07-11 22:17, Silas wrote:
...maybe the speed of light was much higher in the past,.... This has a serious problem. ...since the speed of light is involved in physics and chemistry, and if the speed of light was once much greater, those distant stars could not possibly show the emission and absorption lines we see in spectroscopy.



Silas,
Would you please show me what fundamental physics (or chemistry) equation you are referring to that you think would change if the value of c changes?

G^2



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-07-18 23:25 ]</font>

samsara15
2002-Jul-19, 11:31 AM
The problem I have with taking two hundred years out of Egyptian cronology is that it has to be re-inserted somewhere else. That's not easily done. The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away... If we move the New Kingdom dates up about 200 years, then the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period have to take up the slack. There'e not much to work with in the Middle Kingdom, only two dynasties. I don't think the evidence supports doubling the Second Intermediate period.

Silas
2002-Jul-19, 03:16 PM
On 2002-07-18 23:21, Gsquare wrote:


On 2002-07-11 22:17, Silas wrote:
...maybe the speed of light was much higher in the past,.... This has a serious problem. ...since the speed of light is involved in physics and chemistry, and if the speed of light was once much greater, those distant stars could not possibly show the emission and absorption lines we see in spectroscopy.



Silas,
Would you please show me what fundamental physics (or chemistry) equation you are referring to that you think would change if the value of c changes?

G^2



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-07-18 23:25 ]</font>


Maxwell's Equations. The speed of light is involved in electromagnetism. If the speed of light were vastly different, then magnetism, specifically, would be very different, and this would cause huge changes in observed light near large magnetic fields.

The speed of light is also involved in electricity, from Maxwell's Equations, and electric fields are involved in molecular chemistry. The standard ionic bond that holds atoms together in such molecules as ammonia is caused by the attraction of opposite electric charges. If the speed of light were vastly different, such forces would also have a different strength, and molecular chemistry would be observably different.

Silas

jumbo
2002-Jul-19, 03:41 PM
I seem to recall during my cosmology lectures being told of a book written by an australian professor about various universe with slightly different values of the fundamental constants and what the universes would be like. If i remember the name i`ll post it,it sounded rather interesting.

samsara15
2002-Jul-19, 05:57 PM
On 2002-07-15 18:11, The Curtmudgeon wrote:


On 2002-07-14 21:02, samsara15 wrote:
I CAN'T BUY THOSE ARGUMENTS. SORRY.


Hmm, okay, but just saying that doesn't establish that the arguments are in error.

I could go into more detail about what the arguments, pro and con, actually are, but then this isn't Bad Archaeology, is it? I've put the links in my previous post just so that those who are interested in the topic can go read the arguments for themselves (and although I didn't put any links directly for the "Establishment" position, all the sources I did link to have complete bibliographies). Pointless, and disruptive, for me to go into more detail here.

Nebularain, as for your comment about whether everything Rohl presented is correct, I would tend to agree with you. Reading Rohl, I found his presentation style (you can tell the book was written with the TV production in mind /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif ) sometimes got in the way of his arguments, and a few at the end of the book actually impressed me as being a bit "too good", even while I truly would like to believe them. Nevertheless, his point about the ~200y problem being an Egyptian chronology problem is amply demonstrated by James' work, who got to that same point from a totally different direction, and then went surveying all through the Middle/Late Bronze Age Med cultures and found the problem replicated. In fact, it was reading James' tome (not too bad a description of it: it's weighty both in size and content) that really convinced me about the scope of the problem. Rohl touches on just the Egyptian and Biblical chronologies (which, unfortunately, has left him open to some criticism from the anti-Bible crowd, although reading him shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's certainly not a Biblical literalist, and he came to this problem completely through Egyptological questions, and only later discovered that his proposed solution also solved some Biblical chrono questions). James shows that the problem is very much more wide spread, with evidence from MBA/LBA Spain, Sardinia, Italy, Sicily, Libya, Balkans, Greece, Anatolia (Hittites as well as others, such as Lydians), Syria, Phoenicia, Nubia, as well as Egypt and Israel--and even Assyria and other Mesopotamian cultures where the chronology is only partially based on the Egyptian.

Chronology in archaeology, just like dating in geology/paleontology, has always been a thorny problem. It has to be, by its very nature; stamping everything "(c) 2002" or "Made in Sumer 5000 BC" is a strictly modern phenomenon. The fact that the chronologies are being debated is not, therefore, much of a surprise; the fact that the concensus chronology has gone essentially unchallenged for as long as it has is the real surprise.

The (but then, I supposed I'm dating myself) Curtmudgeon


The only websites I can find that offer any guidlines in dating ancient Egypt suggest a erro marign of up to 300 years for dates prior to 2040 BC, plus or minus 30 years for dates down to 669 BC, after which the quoted dates are presumably more certain. No indication at all given of how the quoted dates were arrived at, and no two sites agree on dates.

samsara15
2002-Jul-19, 06:00 PM
On 2002-07-16 16:53, nebularain wrote:


On 2002-07-15 20:09, beskeptical wrote:

I find your posts to be quite intelligent as are many of the posters on this board.


Why, thank-you, sir! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif I respect your input as well, even on points we've disagreed on.

No, I wasn't after questioning radio carbon dating. I've heard some of the arguments against it, but I'd have to really study them before I could formulate an opinion for or against either side, which I have not had time to do. Sure would make for an interesting research project, though.



I find sites that warn that contamination can be a problem with Carbon-14 and Pottasium-Argon dating, but still maintain that with proper caution, both dating methods can yield reliable dates.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jul-19, 09:48 PM
On 2002-07-19 07:31, samsara15 wrote:
The problem I have with taking two hundred years out of Egyptian cronology is that it has to be re-inserted somewhere else.

Um, no, actually. The problem is that somewhere, as yet to be determined, the Manetho chronology gets off by ~200 years as indicated by the problems caused in other cultures' chronologies when they are based on, or aligned to, it. There's no need to re-insert the time anywhere else in the chronology. The dates given for all dynasties before the necessary cut(s) simply are ~200 years too early.

Most of the theories about specific locations to start the cutting revolve around the idea that Manetho has made consecutive in his list dynasties that were, in fact, overlapping--in other words, he claims that (and I may be off on some of these numbers, but for example's sake let's not get bogged in the details) Dynasty XXII was followed by XXIII was followed by XXIV was followed by XXV, all of them as pan-Egyptian ruling classes, when the actual sequence may have been more that XXII ruled northern ("Lower") Egypt from Sais or Tanis at the same time as XXIII was ruling southern ("Upper") Egypt from Memphis, and that during that same time, or a part of it, XXIV was claiming to rule Egypt but really were only holding onto a rump state in the western desert oases or down in Nubia; then XXV came along, wiped out the bloody lot of them, and truly did rule all of Egypt. This is seen as being most likely (for a number of different reasons) in the Third Intermediate Period (TIP), but of course the Second Intermediate Period (SIP) also comes in for some smaller consideration.

The whole deal with the IPs (even the First) is that they are already agreed to be times of dynastic confusion and upheaval; that's why they were called IPs in the first place, as opposed to the Old, Middle and New Kingdom periods which really were (or certainly give every impression of being) periods of consecutive dynastic succession with little or no civil unrest or warfare.

I know for a fact that one of the TIP dynasties, and I believe that I remember correctly that it was the XXIV, is already agreed by virtually every Egyptologist to be a complete overlap with the XXIII. And yet Manetho does not mention any overlap, and treats them as successive dynasties rather than competing dynasties. So it's not like the New Chronologists, in any of their varied redating schemes, are proposing some radical new idea.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, it's not just on a dynastic level that there are likely to be problems. Individual Pharoahs, in any dynasty including Kingdom dynasties (although probably with a much lower probability than IP dynasties, granted) can have elevated their heir (or intended heir) to a co-Pharoah-ship. So Pharoah X reigned N years, his son Pharoah X+1 reigned M years, but the total of their reigns is actually N+M minus the number of years they were both Pharoah. Again, even the existing concensus chronology allows for this in isolated instances, but perhaps there is evidence that more cases should be recognised.


That's not easily done. The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away... If we move the New Kingdom dates up about 200 years, then the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period have to take up the slack. There'e not much to work with in the Middle Kingdom, only two dynasties. I don't think the evidence supports doubling the Second Intermediate period.


I don't think any proposed new scheme requires doubling the SIP (in fact, if any changes are proposed, it's a reduction, not a doubling), or probably making any changes in the short Middle Kingdom period. As I recall while sitting here at work with no resources to hand, most of the schemes require most of their changes in and around the TIP. But that means that all earlier dynasties, including Pre-, Old, FIP, Middle, SIP and New, get moved up by roughly two centuries.

And yes, that means that Old Kingdom monuments like the Giza Pyramids and the Great Sphinx get an automatic 200-year facelift in their ages.

Navigating David Rohl's Nunki.net (http://www.nunki.net) site drives me batty (can we all say, BAD user interface?), but if you move your cursor over the Sphinx that is sorta hiding in the cutsy picture he's got there and click, you get to his Timelines (http://www.nunki.net/PerRenput/TimeLines/Index.html) page, which is a lot easier to handle than the main site. Clicking on the Egyptian icon there gets you to his New Egyptian Chronology (http://www.nunki.net/PerRenput/TimeLines/NCEgypt.html) page, finally. Of course, he's waaaaaaaay behind time getting the critical TIP chronology on-line (it's in his book, though), but in any case you can see side-by-side his current working dates v. the 'Old Chronology' dates up through Dynasty XX. (Those of you who are bugged by Roman numerals, especially in an Egyptian setting, will be glad to know Rohl uses Arabic numbering on his site; I'm just used to the older style from long reading and studying in archaeology.)

As I indicated in an earlier response, although I first got exposed to this whole issue by Rohl's book, it really is Peter James' much more thorough study in Centuries of Darkness (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813519500/qid=1027114778/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/202-3031326-6675856) that has me convinced of its validity. James doesn't go into nearly the depth that Rohl does in proposing a solution to the problem, though; he really seems to be trying first to get the establishment to accept that there is a problem, so that then more widely-spread attention can be focused on solving it. Rohl, on the other hand, wants to present problem-and-solution in a nice, neat package. I like his solution in general, but I will admit that perhaps he takes it a bit too far when he claims that he has identified an Egyptian statue of Joseph as "vizier" or "first minister" of Egypt exactly according to Genesis. Coat-of-many-colours and all.

The (I have one coat, and it's grey) Curtmudgeon

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-07-19 17:58 ]</font>

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jul-19, 09:55 PM
On 2002-07-19 13:57, samsara15 wrote:
The only websites I can find that offer any guidlines in dating ancient Egypt suggest a erro marign of up to 300 years for dates prior to 2040 BC, plus or minus 30 years for dates down to 669 BC, after which the quoted dates are presumably more certain. No indication at all given of how the quoted dates were arrived at, and no two sites agree on dates.


Yes, that's pretty much it in a nutshell: there is growing evidence that there is chronological problem, most centering around a 200-year figure but +/- 100 years from that doesn't surprise me at all; then everyone who does agree to this proposes their own solution for where the problem lies. So there is growing agreement on the problem, but little as yet agreement on the correct solution for it.

The 669 BC date is pretty much the only stake-in-the-ground left standing in Egyptian chronology: that's the date of the Persian overthrow of the native Pharoanic government, so it is separately established by the Persian chronology, which is fairly well attested to that period by working backwards from the Alexandrian timeline only three centuries later. And Alexander's time is pretty much set in concrete by the combined Greco-Roman dating. So there is no real question about 669 BC or any date after that in Egypt.

The (it's been about that long since I had a date) Curtmudgeon

beskeptical
2002-Jul-21, 12:22 AM
On 2002-07-18 15:40, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
I don't know, "Dear Homo sap" has a certain ring to it! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hey, BeSkep, if you really do think about changing your handle to be more "feminine" (and I for one don't think it necessary, but you're the one who has to field the various questions that arise), you could try 'Beskeptigal' instead. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

The (or not) Curtmudgeon


I love it. What a great idea. I'll make it my sig until I can find out how to change names and keep BF status. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

I like "Dear Homo sap" too. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

samsara15
2002-Jul-21, 03:49 AM
On 2002-07-19 17:55, The Curtmudgeon wrote:


On 2002-07-19 13:57, samsara15 wrote:
The only websites I can find that offer any guidlines in dating ancient Egypt suggest a erro marign of up to 300 years for dates prior to 2040 BC, plus or minus 30 years for dates down to 669 BC, after which the quoted dates are presumably more certain. No indication at all given of how the quoted dates were arrived at, and no two sites agree on dates.


Yes, that's pretty much it in a nutshell: there is growing evidence that there is chronological problem, most centering around a 200-year figure but +/- 100 years from that doesn't surprise me at all; then everyone who does agree to this proposes their own solution for where the problem lies. So there is growing agreement on the problem, but little as yet agreement on the correct solution for it.

The 669 BC date is pretty much the only stake-in-the-ground left standing in Egyptian chronology: that's the date of the Persian overthrow of the native Pharoanic government, so it is separately established by the Persian chronology, which is fairly well attested to that period by working backwards from the Alexandrian timeline only three centuries later. And Alexander's time is pretty much set in concrete by the combined Greco-Roman dating. So there is no real question about 669 BC or any date after that in Egypt.

The (it's been about that long since I had a date) Curtmudgeon
FYI, you're talking Assyria in 669 BC. Persia wan't a blip on the radar screen in 669 BC...not even on the sceen until 550 BC. Secondly, the source I found only allowed a thirty year error margin in dates between 2040 Bc and 669 BC.

Squink
2015-Sep-20, 04:46 PM
Had this thread been printed on wood pulp derived paper at time of the last post, I doubt we could tell its age via carbon dating; trees being perennials. OTOH, Papyrus or Hemp fibre paper, grown as annuals, might show a difference in C12/C14 ratios between product produced in 2002 vs 2015.

BigDon
2015-Sep-21, 03:20 PM
Oldest thread resurrection I've seen in a while.